Advertisement

Ecotoxicology

, Volume 20, Issue 7, pp 1599–1608 | Cite as

Mercury concentrations in snapping turtles (Chelydra serpentina) correlate with environmental and landscape characteristics

  • Madeline A. Turnquist
  • Charles T. Driscoll
  • Kimberly L. Schulz
  • Martin A. Schlaepfer
Article

Abstract

Mercury (Hg) deposited onto the landscape can be transformed into methylmercury (MeHg), a neurotoxin that bioaccumulates up the aquatic food chain. Here, we report on Hg concentrations in snapping turtles (Chelydra serpentina) across New York State, USA. The objectives of this study were to: (1) test which landscape, water, and biometric characteristics correlate with total Hg (THg) concentrations in snapping turtles; and (2) determine whether soft tissue THg concentrations correlate with scute (shell) concentrations. Forty-eight turtles were sampled non-lethally from ten lakes and wetlands across New York to observe patterns under a range of ecosystem variables and water chemistry conditions. THg concentrations ranged from 0.041 to 1.50 μg/g and 0.47 to 7.43 μg/g wet weight of muscle tissue and shell, respectively. The vast majority of mercury (~94%) was in the MeHg form. Sixty-one percent of turtle muscle samples exceeded U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) consumption advisory limit of 0.3 μg Hg/g for fish. Muscle THg concentrations were significantly correlated with sulfate in water and the maximum elevation of the watershed. Shell THg concentrations were significantly correlated with the acid neutralizing capacity (ANC) of water, the maximum elevation of the watershed, the percent open water in the watershed, the lake to watershed size, and various forms of atmospheric Hg deposition. Thus, our results demonstrate that THg concentrations in snapping turtles are spatially variable, frequently exceed advisory limits, and are significantly correlated with several landscape and water characteristics.

Keywords

Chelydra serpentina Environmental factors Methylmercury Mercury Snapping turtles 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Financial support was provided by the Edna Bailey Sussman Foundation to MAT and the State University of New York—College of Environmental Science and Forestry seed grant to MAS. Special thanks to E. Paul and B. Durie from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and M. Schultz and S. Quinn for field assistance. Thanks to J. Gibbs for providing hoop nets. Laboratory assistance was provided by M. Montesdeoca, E. Mason, J. Brinkley, B. Blackwell, and M. Koppers. Additional thanks to J. Gillette, C. Whritenour, D. Baker, S. Figary, T. Watson, R. Abbott, M. Atwood, and M. Hale for support and feedback. Statistical interpretation assistance provided by S. Stehman. Special thanks to E. Miller for providing Hg deposition data. Thanks to NY State Parks and Campgrounds and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Montezuma Wildlife Refuge for providing access to sites. We would like to thank three anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on this work.

References

  1. Bank MS, Loftin CS, Jung RE (2005) Mercury bioaccumulation in two-lined salamanders from streams in the northeastern U.S. Ecotoxicology 14(1):181–191. doi: 10.1007/s10646-004-6268-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bergeron CM, Husak JF, Unrine JM, Romanek CS, Hopkins WA (2007) Influence of feeding ecology on blood mercury concentrations in four species of turtles. Environ Toxicol Chem 26(8):1733–1741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beyer HL (2004) Hawth’s analysis tools for ArcGIS. http://www.spatialecology.com/htools. Accessed 1 Oct 2010
  4. Bloom NS (1992) On the chemical form of mercury in edible fish and marine invertebrate tissue. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 49(5):1010–1017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burgess N, Evers DC, Kaplan J (2005) Mercury and other contaminants in common loons breeding in Atlantic Canada. Ecotoxicology 14(1):241–252. doi: 10.1007/s10646-004-6271-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen CY, Stemberger RS, Kamman NC, Mayes BM, Folt CL (2005) Patterns of Hg bioaccumulation and transfer in aquatic food webs across multi-lake studies in the northeast US. Ecotoxicology 14(1):135–147. doi: 10.1007/s10646-004-6265-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen CY, Driscoll CT, Kamman NC (in press) Mercury hotspots in freshwater ecosystems: drivers, processes, and patterns. In: Bank MS (ed) Mercury in the environment: pattern and process. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  8. Driscoll CT, Yan C, Schofield CL, Munson R, Holsapple J (1994) The mercury cycle and fish in the Adirondack lakes. Environ Sci Technol 28(3):136–143. doi: 10.1021/es00052a003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Driscoll CT, Han YJ, Chen CY, Evers DC, Lambert KF, Holsen TM, Kamman NC, Munson RK (2007) Mercury contamination in forest and freshwater ecosystems in the northeastern United States. Bioscience 57(1):17–28. doi: 10.1641/b570106 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ernst CH (1965) Bait preferences of some freshwater turtles. J Ohio Herpetol Soc 5(2):53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ernst CH, Lovich JE, Barbour RW (1994) Turtles of the United States and Canada. Smithsonian Institution Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  12. Evers DC (2005) Mercury connections: the extent and effects of mercury pollution in northeastern North America. BioDiversity Research Institute, GorhamGoogle Scholar
  13. Fitzgerald WF, Engstrom DR, Mason RP, Nater EA (1998) The case for atmospheric mercury contamination in remote areas. Environ Sci Technol 32(1):1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gibbs JP, Breisch AR, Ducey PK, Johnson G, Behler JL, Bothner RC (2007) The amphibians and reptiles of New York State: identification, natural history, and conservation. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Golet WJ, Haines TA (2001) Snapping turtles (Chelydra serpentina) as monitors for mercury contamination of aquatic environments. Environ Monit Assess 71(3):211–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Green AD, Buhlmann KA, Hagen C, Romanek C, Gibbons JW (2010) Mercury contamination in turtles and implications for human health. J Environ Health 72(10):14–22Google Scholar
  17. Grieb TM, Bowie GL, Driscoll CT, Gloss SP, Schofield CL, Porcella DB (1990) Factors affecting mercury accumulation in fish in the upper Michigan peninsula. Environ Toxicol Chem 9(7):919–930. doi: 10.1002/etc.5620090710 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grillitsch B, Schiesari L (2010) The ecotoxicology of metals in reptiles. In: Sparling DW, Linder G, Bishop CA, Krest SK (eds) Ecotoxicology of amphibians and reptiles, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Pensacola, pp 337–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hammer DA (1969) Parameters of marsh snapping turtle populations Lacreek Refuge, South Dakota. J Wildl Manag 33(4):995–1005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Harris RC, Bodaly RA (1998) Temperature, growth and dietary effects on fish mercury dynamics in two Ontario lakes. Biogeochemistry 40(2–3):175–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Helwig DD, Hora ME (1983) Polychlorinated biphenyl, mercury, and cadmium concentrations in Minnesota snapping turtles. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 30(2):186–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hintelmann H, Nguyen HT (2005) Extraction of methylmercury from tissue and plant samples by acid leaching. Anal Bioanal Chem 381:360–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lagler KF (1943) Methods of collecting freshwater turtles. Copeia 1943(1):21–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Meyers-Schöne L, Walton BT (1994) Turtles as monitors of chemical contaminants in the environment. Rev Environ Contam Toxicol 135:93–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Meyers-Schöne L, Shugart LR, Beauchamp JJ, Walton BT (1993) Comparison of two freshwater turtles species as monitors of radio nuclide and chemical contaminations: DNA damage and residue analysis. Environ Toxicol Chem 12(8):1487–1496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Miller EK, Vanarsdale A, Keeler GJ, Chalmers A, Poissant L, Kamman NC, Brulotte R (2005) Estimation and mapping of wet and dry mercury deposition across northeastern North America. Ecotoxicology 14(1):53–70. doi: 10.1007/s10646-004-6259-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mosimann JE, Bider JR (1960) Variation, sexual dimorphism, and maturity in a Quebec population of the common snapping turtle, Chelydra serpentina. Can J Zool 38:19–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. National Wildlife Federation (2006) Poisoning wildlife: the reality of mercury pollution. National Wildlife Federation, RestonGoogle Scholar
  29. New York State Department of Health (2009) Chemicals in sportfish and game: 2009–2010 health advisories. New York State Department of Health: Division of Environmental Health Assessment, AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  30. NYS Adirondack Park Agency (2001) Shared Adirondack park geographic information CD-ROM Version 1.0. Adirondack Park Agency, Ray BrookGoogle Scholar
  31. NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (1999) New York state regulatory freshwater wetlands for Oneida county outside the Adirondack Park. Cornell University Geospatial Information Repository (CUGIR). http://cugir.mannlib.cornell.edu/datatheme.jsp?id=111. Accessed 24 May 2010
  32. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (2010) 2010 Ohio snapping turtle consumption advisory. http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/fishadvisory/turtles.aspx. Accessed 12 Oct 2010
  33. Pell SM (1940) Notes on the food habits of the common snapping turtle. Copeia 1940:131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rimmer CC, McFarland KP, Evers DC, Miller EK, Aubry Y, Busby D, Taylor RJ (2005) Mercury concentrations in Bicknell’s thrush and other insectivorous passerines in montane forests of northeastern North America. Ecotoxicology 14(1):223–240. doi: 10.1007/s10646-004-6270-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Roué-LeGall A, Lucotte M, Carreau J, Canuel R, Garcia E (2005) Development of an ecosystem sensitivity model regarding mercury levels in fish using a preference modeling methodology: application to the Canadian boreal system. Environ Sci Technol 39(24):9412–9423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schneider L, Belger L, Burger J, Vogt RC (2009) Mercury bioaccumulation in four tissues of Podocnemis erythrocephala (Podocnemididae: Testudines) as a function of water parameters. Sci Total Environ 407(3):1048–1054. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.09.049 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Simonin HA, Loukmas JJ, Skinner LC, Roy KM (2008) Lake variability: key factors controlling mercury concentrations in New York State fish. Environ Pollut 154(1):107–115. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2007.12.032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. St. Louis VL, Rudd JWM, Kelly CA, Beaty KG, Flett RJ, Roulet NT (1996) Production and loss of methylmercury and loss of total mercury from boreal forest catchments containing different types of wetlands. Environ Sci Technol 30(9):2719–2729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. United States Environmental Protection Agency (1998) Method 7473. USEPA, Office of Science and Technology, Office of Water, Engineering and Analysis Division (4303), WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  40. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2001a) Water quality for the protection of human health: methylmercury. EPA-823-R-01-001, USEPA, Office of Science and Technology, Office of Water, Washington. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/waterquality/standards/criteria/aqlife/pollutants/methylmercury/upload/2009_01_15_criteria_methylmercury_mercury-criterion.pdf. Accessed 25 Sep 2010
  41. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2001b) Method 1630 methylmercury in water by distillation, aqueous ethylation, purge trap, and CVAFS. USEPA, Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Engineering and Analysis Division (4303), WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  42. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (2009) FWS_wetlands_83. http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/DataDownload.html. Accessed 1 Apr 2010
  43. United States Geological Survey (1999) Hydrography features of New York State (shapefile). Cornell University Geospatial Information Repository (CUGIR). http://cugir.mannlib.cornell.edu/bucketinfo.jsp?id=7315. Accessed 25 Feb 2010
  44. United States Geological Survey (2003) National land cover database: zone 13. Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (MRLC). http://www.mrlc.gov/multizone_download.php?zone=13. Accessed 18 Oct 2009
  45. United States Geological Survey (2009) 1-Arc second national elevation dataset. The National Map Seamless Server. http://seamless.usgs.gov/website/seamless/viewer.htm. Accessed 31 Mar 2010
  46. White PS, Cogbill CV (1991) Spruce-fir forests of eastern North America. In: Eagar C, Adams MB (eds) Ecology and decline of red spruce in the eastern United States. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp 3–39Google Scholar
  47. Wiener JG, Spry DJ (1996) Toxicology significance of mercury in freshwater fish. In: Beyer WN, Heinz GH, Redmon-Norwood AW (eds) Environmental contaminates in wildlife: interpreting tissue concentrations. Lewis, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  48. Wiener JG, Knights BC, Sandheinrich MB, Jeremiason JD, Brigham ME, Engstrom DR, Woodruff LG, Cannon WF, Balogh SJ (2006) Mercury in soils, lakes, and fish in Voyageurs National Park (Minnesota): importance of atmospheric deposition and ecosystem factors. Environ Sci Technol 40(20):6261–6268CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Madeline A. Turnquist
    • 1
  • Charles T. Driscoll
    • 2
  • Kimberly L. Schulz
    • 1
  • Martin A. Schlaepfer
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Environmental and Forest BiologyCollege of Environmental Science and Forestry, State University of New YorkSyracuseUSA
  2. 2.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringSyracuse UniversitySyracuseUSA
  3. 3.INRA, Campus BeaulieuRennesFrance

Personalised recommendations